How the Artist Richard Price stole from Instagram, and re-sold other peoples images for $100,000

Copyright Law & Instagram Art

Pushing the boundaries of copyright law, the latest exhibition by New York based artist Richard Prince is raising eyebrows in the art world. Why? Because he's selling canvases that feature other people's Instagram photos. The exhibition "New Portraits," first exhibited at the Gagosian Gallery in New York last year, showcase photographs of subjects that were not shot by Prince himself. But instead feature images that users of the social networking site Instagram have uploaded to the social media platform, that have then been printed out onto large canvasses, Each piece features an added comment from @richardprince1234 below the picture.

Gothamist reports, that the artworks are selling in New York for around $100,000 (£64,000) each of both famous people such as Kate Moss, Pamela Anderson, singer Sky Ferreira, art dealer Tony Shafrazi and model Lara Stone and non-famous people.

One subject of the photos, DoeDeere, confirmed on Instagram that Prince did not seek permission before showcasing one of her images. She posted on Instagram: "yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes, it's just a screenshot (not a painting). No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway."

She said the canvass featuring her portrait sold for $90,000 (£57,500).

For those acquainted with Prince's work, what he has done here – taking others' images and then displaying them as his own, is nothing new. Before Prince, artists like Andy Warhol did the same, using other people’s photographs in their works via the use of silkscreening. Yet Prince work remains too often controversial, showing very little evidence of any transformation of the original work, which raises copyright law issues, particularly with regard to issues of originality and authorship of his work. This is not the first time that Princes work has raised questions of copyright laws. According to Petapixel, Prince is: "notorious in the art world for taking other people’s work, 'appropriating' them as his own with various changes, and then selling them for large amounts of dough."

So is Prince actually breaking the law? If the artists were to make perfect replicas, it would be a clear infringement of the original artists' rights. However, fair use may apply if the work is "transformative." There is some suggestion that Mr Prince may have bypassed copyrighting laws by removing the images' original Instagram captions and adding his own words. But the question here with regard to the minor changes Prince adds to each original Instagram photo, is whether Prince’s additional comments, are "transformative" of the original work enough to meet the standard of fair use?

Unless the artists Richard Prince is formally challenged in court. We won’t fully know the legality of his actions. In 2013, a US court ruled that his "Canal Zone" artworks, which were based on earlier photos from photographer Patrick Cariou, constituted fair use. Prince’s usage of Cariou’s photos was determined to be copyright infringement back in 2011, but an appeals court overturned the ruling in 2013, calling the appropriation “fair use.” The courts taking into account the remix culture we live in.

[Left ] Cariou’s Original Photo [Right] Prince’s Artwork & Fair Use